 |
| Art by RAQUEL MARÍN |
One of the interesting parallels that come up again and again with climate change in faculty discussions about the
Anthropocene is the comparison with slavery.
I have wondered about the power of fiction to help people see into an
experience outside of their own to inspire change—the way Uncle Tom’s Cabin inspired many people to become
abolitionists. I have been hoping for a
novel to solve the problem of the public’s apathy toward climate change (which
is perhaps less realistic than an award-winning movie—but I prefer a good
book!). One of the statements by a colleague in English (I believe) was that
slavery was on its way out anyway, because fossil fuels were on the way in,
allowing people to replace human energy with oil and machinery. The silver lining of fossil fuels I guess. Of
course, the end of slavery wasn’t the result of just one thing—a book, a change
in ethic, changes in laws, up-risings, states leaving the union, a president
with a way with words. It was a lot of forces coming together, and it will
perhaps be the same in dealing with climate change (not ideal!).
McKibben makes an interesting observation in the way we
humans deal with impending necessary change by trying to maintain the status quo despite the sense it may make—this is true in institutions like universities and governments as
well as households. He says:
“…after the crisis of
the Civil War slavery was no longer an acceptable method for white Americans to
exercise dominion over black Americans.
But rather than convert to new notions of universal fellowship and
equality white Americans invented segregation, rigging up Jim Crow laws to
ensure that much of the old relationship would persist in a new guise. And it is of critical importance to realize
that now, just as the old methods of dominating the world have become
unworkable, a new set of tools is emerging that may allow us to continue that
domination by different, expanded, and even more destructive means—that is, we
may very well find a way to keep from choking on our cake, only to gag on the
icing later.” (Page 128, The End of
Nature)
He was talking about our apparent belief that the use of
genetic engineering and biotechnology is our solution of getting us out of our climate troubles. And, it may be part of the
solution, but it does not necessarily keep wild nature wild. Rather, it furthers us down a path of a world
altered to human convenience, which is often not to the convenience for the rest
of biodiversity. Our separateness from
nature, he says was not “an inevitable divorce, and…consciously or
unconsciously many of us realize it was a mistake” (Page 73). He says elsewhere that we need to consider
(and take) a humbler path and I’m intrigued by this humble path, although I
like my conveniences as much as the next person. I have been reading books of Janisse Ray and
she has found a humbler path that keeps her connected to the earth and local
community while minimizing her consumer impact.
It is a start and seems like a better way to live. So, maybe genetic
engineering and biotechnology is our Climate Crow equivalent to Jim Crow, I’m
not sure.
My students said they were surprised when Bill
McKibben wrote that he and his wife wanted children, but that they weren’t sure
if it was right given that the problem of growing population contributes to the biodiversity
loss and climate change. (They now have
one child.) And I was surprised that
they were surprised by this! How could such
considerations not cross their minds? It’s
not that I would advocate the number of children a person should have (well, I
might, but not in class), but limiting the number of children one has does seem
to follow from what we have talked about this semester starting with human
population as the driver for all the conservation issues we are covering. So, their response suggests
that McKibben was right, that we are not going to want to change and that the
humbler path will have limited appeal for most—even the students of
conservation biology.
No comments:
Post a Comment